What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#421  Postby Fallible » Sep 11, 2017 11:46 am

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:Yep. I think this is approaching indistinguishable, but if you observe the way Wortfish studiously glides over certain posts and comments, I don't think we're quite there. For example, he erected his stupid point about how lack of belief implies a deficiency of some sort a while ago now. It was demolished, but he ignored that at the time and recently tried using it again among the same people. In the same vein a few of us have accused him of trolling and even being a troll. Most people who are simply genuinely slow would object to this, or at least refer to it. To my knowledge, he completely ignores references to his trollish ways. He tips over into the identifiably deliberately obtuse for me.

I can't keep up with each and every post on every thread, but the "lack of belief" definition is one which does refuse to go away.


I know, it's strange how phrases which adequately describe something tend to stick around.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#422  Postby BlackBart » Sep 11, 2017 7:33 pm

So... You put Omni which is a prefix meaning 'all' together with the word 'potent' meaning powerful and you get a word that doesn't actually mean 'all powerful'?

:teef: Fucking comedy gold.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12245
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#423  Postby Cito di Pense » Sep 11, 2017 8:12 pm

Wortfish wrote:Well, I am here to correct those who think, for example, that divine omnipotence means God can do anything at all, and not just what is intrinsically possible and conforms to natural law and the limits that come with it.


So, really, it's only a problem for you if somebody doesn't believe in God. The sort of God you're proposing now is not one that would be able to reveal any disappointments it has with atheism or, in fact, anything about its existence. You're reduced to trying to concoct a theology which you hope no one will find comical, but it's far too late for that. You need a God which can telepathically communicate its existence and wishes to a pack of pig-ignorant Iron Age desert nomads.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Sep 11, 2017 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Al Forno, LLD,LDL,PPM
Posts: 29557
Age: 23
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#424  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 11, 2017 8:16 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:[
This is in direct contradiction to your earlier assertion that theism can be falsified, an assertion you tossed into the discoursive arena in this post. And for which you provided, in that very same post, purported "falsifications" thereof, that themselves rely upon the scientific method. Looks like another instance of standard apologetic practice has been exposed - namely, make up whatever happens to be convenient at the moment, regardless of whether the latest fabrication is consistent in any way with previous fabrications, and hope no one notices any inconsistencies arising from this.


Not at all. It is obvious that God cannot be tested and directly observed/measured by scientific methods


No it isn't "obvious". This is another of those ex recto supernaturalist assertions awaiting proper test. An assertion that will look faintly ridiculous, the moment someone comes along and claims successfully that Nobel Prize I mentioned earlier.

Wortfish wrote:least of all because he is not a material and contingent object


Another ex recto supernaturalist assertion, which looks hilariously comic alongside the failure of you and many other supernaturalists to provide a proper definition of "immaterial". A failure that is compounded by the embarrassing fact, that any new entities and interactions postulated to provide a proper, positive definition of "immaterial", only extend our knowledge of the material if they are actually observed.

Wortfish wrote:but that doesn't mean the dogmas of theism cannot be tested and falsified.


In other words, you're admitting that embarrassing, for you anway, point I made earlier, about mythological assertions being wrong. Which means that as a purported source of substantive knowledge, mythologies and their assertions are rendered null and void as such, the moment their assertions are found to be roundly pissed upon by real world data. Which, in the case of many such assertions, has already happened. See: the entire hilarity that is creationism, and the apologetic drivel peddled to try and keep its rotting discoursive corpse moving on castors, as an ersatz for being genuinely alive.

Wortfish wrote:As I stated, theism proposes that God is author of a universe with a beginning, that he is the originator of life, that he designed the universe in a specific way. that he is omnibenevolent and omnipotent and so on.


Correction, specific species thereof peddle these assertions. There are other systems of supernaturalist assertion, that arise from an entirely different basis. A point you've repeatedly avoided addressing, despite being reminded on several occasions thereof in the past by other posters.

Wortfish wrote:These are things for which we could find scientific and philosophical objections to, potentially rendering belief in God incoherent.


And guess what? This has already been done successfully, rendering the mythology in question null and void as a purported source of substantive knowledge. At this point,. it's Game Over for said mythology.

Wortfish wrote:But atheism, on the other hand, cannot be falsified


And as I told you above, atheism does not generate assertions of its own when conducted properly, meaning that falsification is irrelevant. Here's a clue for you, in language simple enough that even a creationist can understand it: "I don't treat your assertions as fact" is not a contrary assertion to those assertions. It's merely a statement about how I regard your assertions. It also says absolutely nothing about how I regard whatever contrary assertions may exist. I happen to be open to the possibility of a god-type entity existing, but I regard mythology and its assertions as wholly incompetent to inform us about this. For that matter, I regard assertions full stop as incompetent to inform us of this on their own, because, as I expounded above, assertions always possess the status "truth value unknown" until a test of those assertions is devised and conducted. On the other hand, carefully constructed assertions plus results of testing thereof, is competent to inform us substantively of outstanding questions.

The enormous problem supernaturalism has, as I and others keep telling you here, is that it hasn't got past the point of vomiting forth assertions scatter-gun style. Its assorted spokespersons and advocates haven't even bothered asking themselves the simple question, of how to resolve the incompatibility of the numerous extant human mythologies in a proper, substantive manner, namely by devising a proper methodology for subjecting those mythologies to test. This is because mythologies have a habit of being written deliberately to avoid test. The assertions contained therein have a habit of being deliberately constructed to be untestable wherever possible, though the level of ignorance about the world of various authors of mythology, was such that they were incapable of ever foreseeing a time when human ingenuity would be able to subject several of those assertions to test. That era has arrived with a vengeance, and swept those mythologies aside, except as interesting works of fiction.

Once again, learn the requisite lessons, and stop posting manifest bullshit.

Wortfish wrote:unless God somehow reveals himself to the world in such a way that any disbelief becomes absurd.


This isn't a falsification of "atheism", because atheism, conducted properly, does not consist of erecting assertions. This is merely a falsification of the contrary assertion.

Your continued parroting of the requisite apologetic drivel, points to one of several embarrassing conclusions with respect thereto. One being that you not only never learned the elementary rules of proper discourse, but have no interest in doing so, because your interest consists of upholding a particular mythology, regardless of how thoroughly that mythology has been rendered null and void on many fronts. Of course, the aetiology is well known to students of doctrinal conformity, a topic I've remarked upon repeatedly in the past, and as a corollary, anyone familiar with my oeuvre would know better than to demonstrate that aetiology in action, when engaging my output.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#425  Postby Calilasseia » Sep 11, 2017 8:17 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:No, really, I'm genuinely curious. Why would you pretend to be this sort of complete idiot? You could be anyone on here, but you choose to be someone who spends hours a day on an internet site regurgitating the same idiotic statements that even the dimmest member here could see through in a heartbeat, and which have all been comprehensively dismantled several times over. From a psychological perspective I'm kind of intrigued. What sort of person decides to do that in their spare time?


Well, I am here to correct those who think, for example, that divine omnipotence means God can do anything at all, and not just what is intrinsically possible and conforms to natural law and the limits that come with it.


Well that's pretty much destroyed your apologetics, hasn't it? Because you asserted earlier, that your fantastic magic entity was necessarily the author of those natural laws. Which becomes problematic, the moment conformity to those natural laws is accompanied by an inability to change them. The problem here being, of course, that if said natural laws do not impose such a restriction once in place, then this possibility becomes open to human experimentation. Which at a stroke destroys any special, "privileged" status you might wish to ascribe to your fantastic magic entity.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#426  Postby Wortfish » Sep 12, 2017 12:32 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Well that's pretty much destroyed your apologetics, hasn't it? Because you asserted earlier, that your fantastic magic entity was necessarily the author of those natural laws. Which becomes problematic, the moment conformity to those natural laws is accompanied by an inability to change them.

And legislators are the authors of state law...but they still have to obey them. The laws and constants of physics could in many cases be quite different, but some laws are so fundamental that they cannot be changed, notably the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I don't see how a divine creator could violate either of them as they are not laws so much as principles.

The problem here being, of course, that if said natural laws do not impose such a restriction once in place, then this possibility becomes open to human experimentation. Which at a stroke destroys any special, "privileged" status you might wish to ascribe to your fantastic magic entity.

And human experiments are showing that the physical constants assume highly specific values that generate an ordered and life-permitting universe. If a divine creator is responsible for setting them as they are, then that means he may have been restricted to using them rather than some other possible set of values.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#427  Postby Wortfish » Sep 12, 2017 1:13 am

Calilasseia wrote:
Another ex recto supernaturalist assertion, which looks hilariously comic alongside the failure of you and many other supernaturalists to provide a proper definition of "immaterial". A failure that is compounded by the embarrassing fact, that any new entities and interactions postulated to provide a proper, positive definition of "immaterial", only extend our knowledge of the material if they are actually observed.

I accept that "immaterial" can be a confusing term but that is because, as you indicate, the definition of the "material" has always been changing. I would simply render it as something not of a space-time reality, namely something non-physical and non-spatial....outside of the cause and effect structure of the natural world.

In other words, you're admitting that embarrassing, for you anway, point I made earlier, about mythological assertions being wrong. Which means that as a purported source of substantive knowledge, mythologies and their assertions are rendered null and void as such, the moment their assertions are found to be roundly pissed upon by real world data. Which, in the case of many such assertions, has already happened. See: the entire hilarity that is creationism, and the apologetic drivel peddled to try and keep its rotting discoursive corpse moving on castors, as an ersatz for being genuinely alive.

You are conflating theism with mythology and even anti-naturalism. All that (mono)theism proposes is that reality at its fundamental level is best explained as the design of a supernatural creator who created Nature and supervises it. All it argues is that Nature is not self-originating even if it is largely self-governing. There is nothing mythological about this.

The enormous problem supernaturalism has, as I and others keep telling you here, is that it hasn't got past the point of vomiting forth assertions scatter-gun style. Its assorted spokespersons and advocates haven't even bothered asking themselves the simple question, of how to resolve the incompatibility of the numerous extant human mythologies in a proper, substantive manner, namely by devising a proper methodology for subjecting those mythologies to test. This is because mythologies have a habit of being written deliberately to avoid test. The assertions contained therein have a habit of being deliberately constructed to be untestable wherever possible, though the level of ignorance about the world of various authors of mythology, was such that they were incapable of ever foreseeing a time when human ingenuity would be able to subject several of those assertions to test. That era has arrived with a vengeance, and swept those mythologies aside, except as interesting works of fiction.

Genesis 1:1 can be tested. If the universe does not have a definite beginning, the creation story in the Bible is falsified straight out of the gate. There are other things scientists could do to falsify theism and, more broadly, spiritualist claims:

1. Show that non-living chemicals can become living organisms purely through known physical and chemical means.
2. Show that consciousness is merely a product of enough atoms interacting with each other in a particular way.
3. Show that a near infinite multiverse exists with different physical properties in each universe.

Theism would not survive in any intellectual or rational discourse if all 3 were demonstrated.

Your continued parroting of the requisite apologetic drivel, points to one of several embarrassing conclusions with respect thereto. One being that you not only never learned the elementary rules of proper discourse, but have no interest in doing so, because your interest consists of upholding a particular mythology, regardless of how thoroughly that mythology has been rendered null and void on many fronts. Of course, the aetiology is well known to students of doctrinal conformity, a topic I've remarked upon repeatedly in the past, and as a corollary, anyone familiar with my oeuvre would know better than to demonstrate that aetiology in action, when engaging my output.

You are in the nasty habit of falsely equating theism with magic and mythology, refusing to acknowledge even the possibility that the supernatural is the source and origin of the natural. You also avoid dealing with the fact that the rational intelligibility and regularity of Nature permits scientific investigation and, yet, there is no reason or explanation as to why this should be. But it is very consistent with the notion that Nature has been established by an intelligent supernatural agent.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#428  Postby pelfdaddy » Sep 12, 2017 1:45 am

Wortfish,

What is the source of the supernatural? If I assert that there is another level above the supernatural, that the superdupernatural is the source of the supernatural, and that a superGod is the creator of your arrogant atheist of a God who ignorantly claims to be un-created, would this bother you?
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 54
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#429  Postby Scot Dutchy » Sep 12, 2017 9:10 am

How many parallel gods are there? Which dimension is your god in?

You still not have answered the problem of the universe and millions of Earth type planets. Never mind indefinite parallel universes.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#430  Postby Sendraks » Sep 12, 2017 9:42 am

Wortfish wrote:
And legislators are the authors of state law...but they still have to obey them.


Legislators =/= supposed ominpotent deities

Wortfish wrote: The laws and constants of physics could in many cases be quite different, but some laws are so fundamental that they cannot be changed, notably the first and second laws of thermodynamics. I don't see how a divine creator could violate either of them as they are not laws so much as principles.


Then the divine creator is not omnipotent, as an omnipotent creator could set up laws however they saw fit. Which means your "god" is just as constrained by the laws of the universe as we are. Which would mean they should not be operating beyond those laws. Which would mean they should be detectable in some way.

Yet they are not.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#431  Postby Shrunk » Sep 12, 2017 11:07 am

Wortfish wrote:And legislators are the authors of state law...but they still have to obey them.


But they are able to disobey them, and not infrequently do.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#432  Postby Wortfish » Sep 12, 2017 11:21 am

Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:And legislators are the authors of state law...but they still have to obey them.


But they are able to disobey them, and not infrequently do.

Well, there you go...you've just explained how miracles could happen. :clap:
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#433  Postby Wortfish » Sep 12, 2017 11:24 am

Sendraks wrote:
Then the divine creator is not omnipotent, as an omnipotent creator could set up laws however they saw fit. Which means your "god" is just as constrained by the laws of the universe as we are. Which would mean they should not be operating beyond those laws. Which would mean they should be detectable in some way.

There is no way a supernatural deity could violate the first law of thermodynamics because it is a fundamental principle of existence itself. Omnipotence only refers to what is intrinsically possible, not what is potentially possible.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 971

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#434  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 12, 2017 12:03 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:And legislators are the authors of state law...but they still have to obey them.


But they are able to disobey them, and not infrequently do.

Well, there you go...you've just explained how miracles could happen. :clap:

Nope. Words are really hard, aren't they?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#435  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Sep 12, 2017 12:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Then the divine creator is not omnipotent, as an omnipotent creator could set up laws however they saw fit. Which means your "god" is just as constrained by the laws of the universe as we are. Which would mean they should not be operating beyond those laws. Which would mean they should be detectable in some way.

There is no way a supernatural deity could violate the first law of thermodynamics because it is a fundamental principle of existence itself.

Meaning something exists outside of your god and independent of your god.
Meaning he isn't the creator of all and your claim that everything must be created is nonsense.

Wortfish wrote: Omnipotence only refers to what is intrinsically possible, not what is potentially possible.

Dishonest semantic games only work on the gullible, not this forum.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31088
Age: 31
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#436  Postby Sendraks » Sep 12, 2017 12:04 pm

Wortfish wrote:
There is no way a supernatural deity could violate the first law of thermodynamics because it is a fundamental principle of existence itself. Omnipotence only refers to what is intrinsically possible, not what is potentially possible.


Ominpotence means you can determine what is intrinsically possible. All you're doing is setting up a framework in which an omnipotent deity has to work, because apparently "it set it up that way, so as to deliberately constraint its powers."

Stop squirming Wortfish. :lol:
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#437  Postby Shrunk » Sep 12, 2017 1:03 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Wortfish wrote:And legislators are the authors of state law...but they still have to obey them.


But they are able to disobey them, and not infrequently do.

Well, there you go...you've just explained how miracles could happen. :clap:


I don't follow. If a politician takes a bribe, that's a miracle? :eh:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#438  Postby Animavore » Sep 12, 2017 1:10 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Not at all. It is obvious that God cannot be tested and directly observed/measured by scientific methods,


The Bible disagrees. There is a method for testing God. The Gideon towel test. I tried this experiment myself. Unfortunately the pictures are gone so you only have my testament, and those who saw the pics at the time.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p1083873

An oldie, but a goodie.

atheism, on the other hand, cannot be falsified unless God somehow reveals himself to the world in such a way that any disbelief becomes absurd.

Yes. It can be falsified. And yet...
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44757
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#439  Postby Fallible » Sep 12, 2017 5:11 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Then the divine creator is not omnipotent, as an omnipotent creator could set up laws however they saw fit. Which means your "god" is just as constrained by the laws of the universe as we are. Which would mean they should not be operating beyond those laws. Which would mean they should be detectable in some way.

There is no way a supernatural deity could violate the first law of thermodynamics because it is a fundamental principle of existence itself. Omnipotence only refers to what is intrinsically possible, not what is potentially possible.


How dare you think you know God. You're just an ignorant human and cannot possibly hope to understand His ways.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 48
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: What is the difference between ID and "theistic evolution"?

#440  Postby BlackBart » Sep 12, 2017 7:38 pm

Conjuring up a universe would violate the first law of law of thermodynamics. Oops.
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12245
Age: 58
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest